Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:12PM
from the project-vigilant dept.

atommota writes "After years of complaints of police misconduct, the ACLU is giving free video cameras to some residents of high-crime neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO to help them monitor officers. The ACLU of Eastern Missouri launched the project Wednesday after television crews last year broadcast video of officers punching and kicking a suspect who led police on a car chase. 'The idea here is to level the playing field, so it's not just your word against the police's word,' said Brenda Jones, executive director of the ACLU chapter. The ACLU has worked closely with the police to make sure they are aware of this program. This is in stark contrast to the recent Pennsylvania arrest for felony wiretapping of a guy who was videotaping a police stop."

While I do appreciate the funny mod, I was also being somewhat serious, if a cop has the authority to shoo you away from a "scene" and make sure you aren't taping him/her doing something, they can still get away with doing "bad things". I guess you just have to tape them covertly? I can also see all sorts of legal issues arising from this. ..good thing the ACLU is backing it up.

Umm, no. My camcorder is almost 5 years old. It has 6x optical zoom and 200x digital zoom. If you had actually taken the effort to check at bestbuy.com, you'd have seen camcorders with at least 35x optical and 1000x digital zoom.

I saw someone pulled over on Monday and because I happened to be going through the one lane they were now blocking with the traffic stop, I pulled into a nearby lot and watched it all occur.1. The officers were very rude and were completely intolerant of the individual's lack of English skills. I realize I live in a state where people find KQRS' resident racist Tom Bernard "entertaining", but the cops should at least be a little more understanding.

"Except the US doesn't have an official "national language" that everyone is required to know."

According to Hillary on one of the debates the other night...she said we did. She said she was for the current designation of the 'national language' as being English. But, she voted against making it the "official" language...saying she was afraid that would do away with multi-lingual ballots, and govt. forms.

Because I was replying tongue-in-cheek. I don't HONESTLY believe that people should have to be fluent in a language to move someplace.
It's certainly advantageous, and I'd encourage them to learn it, but it's ultimately their choice. And I can't realistically expect them to learn it in a day(how long had that person been living in the US anyway? If I move to South Korea to hang out with the old people, I'll try to learn Korean. I'll probably eventually become pretty good at it. But for quite a few ye

Forcing long term visitors to learn English in the US would help them in the same way AND help them to meld into our society quicker. I kinda miss the old 'melting pot' theory of the US...where the immigrants come in to the culture, bring with them their 'gifts', but meld into the greater culture, rather than segregate themselves into a mini-society within the US society. (emphasis mine)I love the way that was written. I am sure you didn't do it intentionally but it's spoken like many Americans I know and

Although the United States currently has no official language, English has long been the de facto national language, which is spoken by about 82% of the population as a native language. (emphasis mine)

Given that it is the ACLU, they may be hoping that some police department will sue so they can have a judgment in court stating that videotaping police in public is just as legal as videotaping anyone else in public.

While I may have issue with the ACLU's selective view on the Bill of Rights (they refuse to acknowledge the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right), I must admit I give kudos to them for taking this up.

While I'm sure most law enforcement officers are good people, there are too many jack-booted thugs among the ranks, who view the Bill of Rights as a nuisance and a hindrance and/or are control freaks on a trip.

I find it extremely distasteful that the "felony wiretap" case was in my home state o

Actually, IIRC, the ACLU has come out and said that the since NRA defends the 2nd Amendment so conscientiously, they defer such cases to them. That's not at all the same thing as refusing to acknowledge it.

While I'm sure most law enforcement officers are good people, there are too many jack-booted thugs among the ranks, who view the Bill of Rights as a nuisance and a hindrance and/or are control freaks on a trip.

I agree with that sentiment 100% (both parts of it).

What's interesting is that this case seems to be pitting two things the ACLU fights for against each other. Due process vs. privacy (of the cops). I think they're making the right call here, but I still find that conflict interesting. (Just to play devil's advocate: how would you like it if someone taped most of your workday?)

I don't see what's "selective" about that. While any particular person (including me) may disagree with the philosophy behind it, this is a very well reasoned stance... there is ambiguity in what the constitution says and means on this issue, the ACLU protects constitutional rights when such rights are clear.

Just to play devil's advocate: how would you like it if someone taped most of your workday?

I've heard that most cops actually liked the idea of video cameras in their cars because it proved that they were good cops in most cases. If I had a job that involved me being accountable for something as serious as protecting and serving citizens, then I wouldn't mind being videotaped. In most cases I'm sure this will show most cops in good light, but we'll never see those videos on the evening news.

I'm always amused when people criticize the ACLU for their ambivalence towards the 2nd Amendment. Usually (not always), it comes from pro-NRA people. Though I do wish the ACLU pushed for gun rights too, my math says that championing 9/10 of the Bill of Rights is 900% as good as championing 1/10 of the Bill of Rights, as the NRA does. So the ACLU is only 9 times as faithful to the Bill of Rights as the NRA.

The ACLU doesn't oppose gun rights, just as the NRA doesn't oppose the other 9 Amendments, but if

I had EXACTLY that occur back when I was 22 (sadly, that would be a LONG time ago) in Fort Collins, Co. I was a passenger in a 1 car crash. The driver was put in cuffs and a female cop started beating the driver. I stood a distance away but was telling her to stop. She told me to leave right then and there. I pointed out that would be leaving the scence of an accident, to which she replied yes, but that I was to be arrested one way or another. I chose for her to arrest me for "interfering with a lawful arrest". Once she had cuffs on me, she started to hit and kick at me. Once the 2'nd squad got there, she stopped. But of course, she had the 2 of us in cuffs, with me hoping mad. The interesting thing was that the DA dropped the charges for the interfering with a lawful arrest, but got me on some other items. Of course, had she not been beating on the driver, or had not arrested me in the first place, then the later items would never have occured. Sadly, last I heard, she and idiot (ernie telez) from FC were still working there.

I'm surprised you did not file a complaint against the officers involved. I know I would have. And I can't see what you did that was wrong. You were trying to stop someone from being assaulted. I guess in the Peoples' Republic of America, that's a felony now too.

Second, I use to work in the local hospital as EMT. The ED had had dealings with Telez and several other officers (1 person came in with multiple broken bones, bruises all over, etc and he was being transported from FC. jail to Larimer County jail by Telez; City Attorny laughed when told about it; oh, the prisoner was a simple thief, not a child molester).

When I told the attorney, they laughed and said that nothing would happen. And I KNEW they were correct.

...that while the ACLU is absolutely right in this context, the practical upshot of this is that many more folks in that community will become victims of Police "misconduct" due to their conspicuous wielding of cameras. And while fighting the good fight and filming anyway is great in the best of all possible worlds, that world isn't this one, and police officers know how to hurt you in real ways, not to mention the system of, ahem, Justice they represent is heavily stacked against someone who has a legit beef re: a police officer.

Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?

While I agree that on a practical side, you are probably correct, I love that the issue is being forced. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, and that bridge will have to be crossed eventually. (well, short of a miracle)

By forcing the issue now, hopefully the issue can be brought to light and fixed, and the increase in police issues could hopefully be a temporary condition. By not doing it, things just stew longer and get worse. Hopefully, the sooner it is addressed, the shorter and milder the "dangerous increase in police issues" period could be.

By forcing the issue now, hopefully the issue can be brought to light and fixed, and the increase in police issues could hopefully be a temporary condition. By not doing it, things just stew longer and get worse. Hopefully, the sooner it is addressed, the shorter and milder the "dangerous increase in police issues" period could be.

I couldn't agree more. My only thing is, I've been at protests that have ended up in arrests (and been arrested at same) and those were tame in comparison to the sorts of inc

I guess my point is that, for this country to truly support freedom, this confrontation will have to happen eventually.Traditionally, this is through a violent revolution or coup or similar. Civil War is about the worst possible solution, though, and if we can avoid it with some smaller conflicts now, that would be better for everybody.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will work - too many people are apologists for the police and the powers-that-be, too many people are profiting from the current situation, an

Oh really? Care to elaborate? Would you prefer an all-out war against an invading force? Thermonuclear holocaust, anyone? Besides, shooting cops in the streets IS civil war. Your policemen are still people of your nationality.

A) It's "worst" in the sense that any all-out war is bad. Many many many people on all sides die.

B) Where, exactly, am I advocating shooting cops? I specifically said that filming them as a good alternative solution to try for now.

C) Yes, there is a mini-war going on in the streets. You could say I'm suggesting that a diplomatic solution could be found, and at least tried, before just jumping on the Bush-style "just bomb them back to the stone age" method.

Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?

Because who knows who out there that they didn't see is also recording?

I just wonder how many of these tapes that make into court will show the incident from beginning to end, or only the part that shows what the person who recorded it wants you to see... just like the evening news. Like with a lot of stores CCTV systems, when it co

Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?

That's easy. But that assumes that the recording device (camcorder, cellphone, whatever), isn't also transmitting the data elsewhere. A wi-fi enabled camera-phone would pretty much nullify that option.

I think you have a valid concern, but one of the few things more powerful in this world than the police/justice system is free communications. Once a few videos like this start appearing on the Internet, showing people who look like police officers beating people up, or better yet showing identifiable officers, then the higher authorities will have to take action, and it will have to be quick, obvious and decisive. Being seen to defend or condone this sort of behaviour is enough to get powerful people unele

The solution isn't to just "give up" on areas like that, it's to fix the police behavior (and political mess that's related).

Do away with the things people hate the cops for, like the War On (some) Drugs, idiotically stupid traffic enforcement, enforcement of morality, etc, and people will like the cops again. Do away with the abuses of power they have by quickly and publicly punishing those cops that commit the abuses, and people wi

Well, I was referring to only some traffic issues. There's a difference between people engaging in actually dangerous behavior, and the "revenue generation" speed traps that undermine the respect people have of the police/etc.

As for morality crimes... do you want hookers turning tricks in your front yard? I suspect not.

No, but that's a problem because of the illegality of prostitution. Legalize it, and you can zone it into sane business/industrial districts like a

I can see this now, similar to police cars having cameras mounted in them, new cars begin to offer mounted cameras as optional equipment. Perhaps this would be more useful than a DVD player in the backseat.

Not only is this an idiotic oversimplification, it also utterly fails to account for the spirit of the law as it is currently upheld; no childre are harmed by the viewing of said pornography. No crime has been committed by the mere sight of some moving pixels.

Awwww... don't like my bringing up a valid point? The point is that when you support an organization, you support all of an organization. The ACLU is so caught up in ideology that it cannot see past it. It supports decriminalizing the viewing of porn. Even if you take the tact that "no children are hurt by viewing", you make a nice breeding ground for suppliers to exist. In case you are wondering, they also support the right of folks to sell the stuff as well.The same is true with this "supply cameras to po

Yup. The NRA is in the same boat. Overall I support what they support. But when they don't realize that there are limits to the 2nd amendment, support some real nut jobs who are dangerous to society, I refuse to support the organization.

Funny thing is now I can be accused of being a left wing nut as well who should stop listening to the mainstream media:)

I love the assumption that I watch Fox News. Don't even watch TV. Don't listen to Fox Radio, don't browse Fox online.Not even a Republican, sorry.

The ACLU is an organization so caught up in an ideology that they have gone off the deep end and have caused more issues than they have solved. I do agree with the ACLU's stances many times. Others they are way off. When you support the viewing and distributing of child porn, there is no way I can support the group.

if the criminals were being monitored, then they wouldn't be able to commit all the crimes and then the area wouldn't be described as 'high crime' areas now would they.

Besides, who are the ACLU giving these cameras to? Law-abiding citizens who live in these areas and are worried that the local scroats might have their civil liberties abused whilst they were committing vandalism, burglary and violent crimes against the person?

In addition to reporting any misbehavior by the police, I hope that the ACLU has enough integrity to also publicly commend any officer that is recorded acting responsibility in a difficult situation. A little positive reinforcement can go a long ways.

In addition to reporting any misbehavior by the police, I hope that the ACLU has enough integrity to also publicly commend any officer that is recorded acting responsibility in a difficult situation. A little positive reinforcement can go a long ways.

I don't agree. I am a nurse. I have seen other nurses out there that steal narcotics, make dangerous medical decisions, etc. Those nurses suck, and make the rest of us look bad. I don't think I should be commended for doing my job right just because there are those out there that do it badly. I am not a cop, and couldn't speak for them, but if someone tried to commend me for doing the right thing, I would be a bit disgusted. That's like saying, "Thanks for giving your patients those pain meds, instead of stealing them." or the cop equivalent, "Thanks for making that arrest without beating that guy to death." People should not be commended for doing what they are required to do by the job, and what should be a socially accepted standard of moral ethics.

Funny, I thought their job was to act responsibly in difficult situations?

I will, and have, thanked officers personally for doing good work, because I appreciate it. But it's pretty ridiculous to even insinuate that an organization with a serious focus should waste its time and resources thanking people for doing their jobs.

That would be the job of the police department itself, to recognize its own employees that do exemplary work, and reward them, not the ACLU's job, right? The ACLU's job is to make sure they do not abuse the additional power (and thus, additional responsibility) that has been accorded to them by the people they have power over.

And you can't tell me that stoners are a positive influence on society. "nobody gets hurt" Bullshit.

"ok, go home take all your tapes all your albums and burn them."--Bill Hicks

The fact is that they will be whatever types of influence on society they'll be. Exactly like everyone else.

Would you care to refute "nobody gets hurt" with an actual argument instead of just a denial? Now be very careful. Almost everyone who tries actually makes an argument for the harm of drug laws rather than the harm of drugs.

What about privacy? Not of the police but of the person being stopped, questioned or possibly arrested?

With other folks taking the suspect's picture it is going to become common for these photos to make their way onto the web and into TV news. So you now have even worse situations with "Look who got arrested today!!!" even when no arrest was made.

Think about it - you are stopped by the police for going through a yellow light. No ticket issued, just a warning. Next day you find your very recognizable picture on some web page and half your co-workers think it is very funny. Of course the caption on the picture makes it seem like you are being hauled off to jail. Funny? Not when you have a public-facing job and people now believe you are "some kind of criminal." Even if all you do is work in a shoe store you are going to get canned if you spend more time explaining the picture than selling shoes.

If you are a public figure how much do you think a picture of you being questioned by the police would be worth? To tabloid newspapers? To your opposing candidates in an election? Think these pictures won't be sold because "oh these are ACLU cameras" - think again.

The only way this makes sense is with an underlying assumption that all police officers are violent thugs that need to be monitored constantly. If that is even remotely the case there are other ways of dealing with that problem than getting photographs and video of people being stopped or questioned by the police.

All police officers DO need to be monitored constantly. I would be completely for mandating that every single police officer has a shoulder mounted camera that is always one when they are on the job. When you give someone the level of authority that a police officer gets, you also need to increase the monitoring. If you get wrongly abused by a police officer, most people are rightly terrified to do anything about it. Openly monitoring the people with the authority to use force is the only method of prev

Think about it - you are stopped by the police for going through a yellow light. No ticket issued, just a warning.

Worse than that...if you are seen talking to the police for any reason.
You are a witness at a traffic accident. One of your helpful neighbors is filming the scene, with you face to face with the cop. The video shows up the next day. Depending on how it was shot and edited, it could look quite bad.

...so basically you'd want to prevent the widespread use of video cameras, ACLU or otherwise?... a bit too late for that my friend, most police cruisers come with a dashboard camera....a good number of stoplights have cameras....if you live in the UK, the damn street corners have cameras. They're already everywhere.

This is a great idea, though unfortunately this would be illegal in many states, including Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Not only would the tape be inadmissible, but you might end up in jail for surreptitious recording. It's happened...

If it were anybody other than the ACLU doing this, I'd be more in favor of it. I simply don't trust the ACLU to have my interests best in mind, nor have implemented it in an even, fair, or unbiased manner.

This might even be an attempt to antagonize and create incidents with the police over the whole video taping issue, rather than a valid method of checks and balances. It wouldn't be the first time the ACLU has done such things.

Nor was the incident cited in TFA the first time a citizen has gotten in trouble for video taping police against their wishes. Just a couple of years ago a man, in his home, on his property, using installed surveillance cameras covering his property, got arrested when he taped officers coming to his door. That's simply wrong!

Of course, if you can manage to get away with the actual taping at the time, anyone with a video camera and YouTube can make their case without the ACLU at all.

To turn what some of our pro-oppression friends would like to say on its head: If the police have nothing to hide, then why should they mind being taped?

Seriously, we all know that police brutality goes on. What we don't know is how much. Well, this is a way to find out. If these images end up on YouTube, great. They may be ugly, but this isn't something you sweep under the rug. Let's get it out there and get it stopped. If this does that, then it's a good thing.

Ummm, the ACLU pays more attention to your rights than YOU do! When most of the nitwits in this country were gleefully handing over their civil liberties via the Patriot Act, the ACLU was our champion. They're the ones who defend transgressions against us when YOU would be too blinded by snap judgment to see the indignity. When government wants to take away rights, it won't be in a landmark case against a nun. It will be against the terrorist, murderer or child molester. This is the organization that defended one of its biggest deriders in Rush Limbaugh simply because they view encroachments on our rights through an agnostic lens.
Now, if you can cite an example to validate your distrust...

Agreed. Similarly, I was thinking about helping out Habitat for Humanity, but they don't work for gun rights, so I decided not to.

The ACLU fights for some rights. Maybe they pick and choose for poor reasons, but they aren't fighting against gun rights, so their failure to fight for them is no more relevant than the NRA's failure to fight malaria.

I support this move because I hope it will prove more officers to be in the right than in the wrong. Working as a STL city cop is a wretched job. The low pay and low respect goes without saying. The police officers work in incredibly dangerous parts of the city and are in real danger to their lives. A crackhead will not hesitate to take an officers life. If an officer takes physical action to protect him/herself then I think the public should understand that. However, if the officer(s) abuse power (ra

I can see it now . . . a brand new show in the time slot right after Cops. "America's Dirtiest Police Videos"

In my opinion, this has as much of a chance of protecting citizen rights as it does to hinder legit police activities and responses to emergencies. Cops start paying more attention to the cameras and neglect the crime/crimals they were called to investigate and put themselves and others at risk.

I'm all for accountability, but does the ACLU also provide similar equipment to folks so they can mon

There is a trial going on right now where a police officer shot an off-duty airman named Elio Carrion. Carrion was shot three times, but he managed to survive. Anyway, a man across the street got the shooting on tape, and it pretty clearly shows Carrion complying with instructions to get up off the ground when the officer shoots him. There's some pretty good coverage of the case here: http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_6200154 [dailybulletin.com]

The officer's defense has been that he thought Carrion was reaching for a wea

Here in the UK, each police force's budget has a large amount of taxpayer's money earmarked for 'we don't admit any liability' compensation settlements for the inevitable cases where the police have been caught wrongfully arresting or assaulting innocent people each year. If this ACLU initiative deters police wrongdoing, it could easily end up saving the US taxpayer money...

As someone who has given money to the ACLU from time to time, this is a GREAT use of my money. If it can catch some of the cops abusing the power of the gun that they wield, it's a huge win.Also, similar to how concealed-carry weapons lower crime even for those who are not carrying, the knowledge that there's a lot of people out there ready to catch the police abusing their power can act like a great deterring factor, which is an even better win. Stopping the abuse before it starts is a much better solution

To my mind you sacrifice your own rights when you choose to do something like that, and deserve a good beating.

That's all well and good. But do you deserve a beating if you didn't do anything wrong [workers.org]? (I'd post a less inflammatory link, but the mainstream press articles are behind a pay wall - however the article does give the basic facts, and I'll note that one of the officers involved in the incident later resigned [masslive.com] over allegations of drug use).

And who gets to decide if you deserve this beating? Why, the cops who administer it. And what if your offense was "running your mouth", "not showing the proper respect", or "getting in the way"? What if you just happened to see something the cops would rather you not have seen, so they decide to "teach you a lesson"?The police are supposed to be there to arrest those who break the law. Once a chase is over, the person who was fleeing is not putting anyone else in danger. And since there are laws agains

Not to mention the fact that the incident the ACLU is reacting to was caught, start-to-finish, on the local Fox affiliate's cameras. No framing necessary. KTVI caught it all on tape. The chase, the beatdown, the arrest, all of it.

And before anyone goes spouting a bunch of anti-Fox, right-wing-conspiracy crap, I'd like to let it be known that KTVI (Fox, channel 2, St. Louis) is about as "liberal" as local TV can become without being dismissed as leftist-whackjobs. I'm not sure how they stay a Fox affiliate.

Seriously? They beat the crap our of you because you have long hair? Or were they weary of you because of your long hair and shady demeanor? Did they really beat the crap our of you, or were they trying to subdue you using physical force when you failed to cooperate with them?

Stopping police brutality is a good thing, but we have to be sure it is REAL brutality. Now, I do not know your situation, but I have heard so many stories similar to yours. Many backed up by video evidence. When digging further into the stories, I often find either the police did nothing wrong, or they were antagonized to the point where even a saint would have problems.

I do belive the easiest way to stop police brutality is to be polite and cooperative. I have long hair and have a very suspicious demeanor, but when I get pulled over, I get treated with nothing but respect. I attribute this to me being polite and cooperate. Either that or I just happened to run into the only nice cops in my area.

I was in a bar when a fight broke out, and was doing my best to get out of there when I was grabbed by two portly cops, slammed against the wall, cuffed, thrown to the ground, sat on, and then punched what felt like about 100 times (probably only 10 or 15...im a sissy). The left side of my head swelled up pretty good, and I had a good bit of road rash on other parts. I was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. The cops wrote outright lies on the arrest report, the judge naturally took their word over mine (look at his spotty grooming habits!), and I spent almost a month in jail. You can't imagine what a surreal experience it is to stand there in front of a judge, black and blue, weiging 150lbs soaking wet, and hearing two beefy cops carry on about how hard you were to subdue...and having the judge act like he beleives it.

Had I even SEEN the cops, I would have been polite and cooperative. As it was, all I got to be was a punching bag. Maybe somebody else antagonized them...I dont know. I do know they flat out lied about what happened, and I went to jail for it. If there would have been video of the event, you can bet they would have beat up the videographer too.

I have friends that are cops, so don't think I'm down on the profession, but it does draw psychos...probably 30-40% of cops are like the ones that beat me up. Probably 30-40% of the judges are crooked or brain dead. I suppose it has always been so...but up until that happened I had thought America was special.

Firstly, people in hand cuffs can still be feisty. Put me in a pair and try to fight me. I guarantee you will win, but I also guarantee you will loose a good chunk of flesh. The point is, if this man was still struggling while in hand cuffs they may have had to use physical force to keep him from causing problems. Now physical force could mean a lot of things, as could "beating the crap out of me." I am not saying he is right or wrong, I am simply saying people have a tendency to reword stories to make

That's not the idea. The idea is that someone else has a camera and videotapes the incident. It's also meant to be a deterrent. If the cops don't know whether or not someone is videotaping them, it will serve to keep them honest.